Hydrogen (browns gas) by electrolysis [Archive]

Boblofty

28th July 2015, 09:38 PM

This post certainly does not fit with bio fuels but is relevant in terms of efficacy and efficiency.
Does HHO work/assist in any way....the answer is categorically yes. There are many stories circulating on the net and some very outrageous claims being made...let me tell of my experience over a number of years.
My vehicle is a 2001 Range Rover P38 4.6L petrol HSE. Fuel consumption around town runs an average 18L/100k and on the highway around the 14's+ , these averages have been consistent over about 100,000kms WITHOUT the hydrogen cell.
With the cell turned on, running pure (filtered town) water with a dash of caustic and about 15 amps, consumption is on average about 14's+ around town and about 12's on the highway. These figures over about another 100,000kms.
I won't go into specifics of the design but essentially I run a dry cell with a pump through 5 platinum coated titanium plates and a PWM (pulse wave modulator) to control current and provide a clipped DC voltage. Intake is straight into the air filter box and the system is tied directly to ignition on.
All of the components are designed and made/assembled at home by myself and a good mate (who also ran one on his identical P38).
Our experiences are very similar...low power is markedly improved (such that you can tell if the fuse on the cell has blown) and we have estimated an average improvement on fuel consumption of roughly 15%.

Now be assured I am not selling anything here (and have no desire to do so), I am putting this out there simply to point out some real world experience with HHO with no frills attached and I am quite happy to 'discuss' this with anyone who would like to perhaps try this for themselves.

As I said, there are some outrageous claims being made out there, usually by people selling something....but be assured, in all the BS there are some truths.

A short experience with diesel would suggest that the overall improvements (especially with older engines) is quite significant.

G'day to all the techo's.
Bob

p38arover

28th July 2015, 09:54 PM

Oh, Gawd, here we go again with another thread on Brown's Gas.

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/general-chat/102077-browns-gas-please-read-before-shooting.html

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/bio-fuels/82128-hydrogen-fuel-cell-joe-cells-landys.html

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/alternate-energies/115101-hydrogen-fuel.html

Time to get the popcorn.....

Mick_Marsh

28th July 2015, 10:22 PM

I've found more:
http://www.aulro.com/afvb/alternate-energies/175098-hydrogen.html
http://www.aulro.com/afvb/general-chat/155113-any-one-good-chemistry.html
http://www.aulro.com/afvb/alternate-energies/115101-hydrogen-fuel.html
http://www.aulro.com/afvb/discovery-2/142817-hydrogen.html
http://www.aulro.com/afvb/technical-chatter/79480-hydrogen-generator.html
http://www.aulro.com/afvb/general-chat/102077-browns-gas-please-read-before-shooting.html
http://www.aulro.com/afvb/general-chat/60069-hydrogen-fuel.html
http://www.aulro.com/afvb/general-chat/52943-another-fuel-sving-con.html
http://www.aulro.com/afvb/technical-chatter/49598-more-snake-oil.html

It's about time we put this one to bed, shot it, cremate it and spread the ashes.

p38arover

28th July 2015, 10:57 PM

It's about time we put this one to bed, shot it, cremate it and spread the ashes.

Along with Hiclone threads.

Bazzle218

29th July 2015, 09:55 AM

Good luck Bob. A few years back I asked a question similar to has anyone any experience with this type of set up and was absolutely inundated by responses from arm chair warriors. I cant recall anyone saying they have tried it for a length of time. I for one would be most interested in your experience with diesel to save dramas could you pm me details . Baz

Blknight.aus

29th July 2015, 09:10 PM

this one doesn't even get past his own blurb....

I won't go into specifics of the design but essentially I run a dry cell with a pump through

Browns gas is made from the process of electrolysing water.. not sure how exactly you'd go about that process while keeping the cell dry...

Boblofty

29th July 2015, 10:11 PM

bee utey

29th July 2015, 10:34 PM

Bob, if you can find even one single certified testing facility report that shows the benefits of Hho gas machines, do post it up. No-one out of several tens of thousands of hho enthusiasts has yet to do so AFAIK. An unevidenced report from a layman or two simply won't convince anyone who isn't already convinced.

Over to you.:cool:

Mick_Marsh

29th July 2015, 10:39 PM

I apologise for upsetting the flat earth society....but I do have a further words. Don't knock it until you have tried it and for the scientific and chemistry guys out there, it may be of interest that the before and after exhaust emissions tests suggested that a cleaner and more complete burn took place. And I didn't do those tests.
However, at the end of the day we will believe what we want to believe, right or wrong.
Bob
You would know more about the flat earthers than I but I would like to emphasise, I would love to believe in these HHO generators, however, all the proponents of these HHO generators have not been able to supply me with verified data obtained through repeatable testing performed by a NATA accredited testing facility.
Until then, it's just snake oil.

Boblofty

30th July 2015, 12:21 PM

You would know more about the flat earthers than I but I would like to emphasise, I would love to believe in these HHO generators, however, all the proponents of these HHO generators have not been able to supply me with verified data obtained through repeatable testing performed by a NATA accredited testing facility.
Until then, it's just snake oil.
G'day Mick. Couldn't agree more and I would love to do the NATA testing but having been down that path on other matters one has to have deep pockets....that I don't have. I am not trying to prove to anyone this works and would be reluctant to spend my hard earned just to do that.
We started down this path many years ago being just as skeptical as many others on these pages. (both ex military weapons systems and electrical techo's with combined experience getting awfully close to 100 years) Started with just simple stainless steel knock up experiments...they worked albeit rather poorly. So we moved on to other materials and introduced pulsed DC modulation etc etc, and got good results and..(according to us) some success. But as you say, despite technical backgrounds, any success is purely anecdotal without hard independent data.
I don't feel slighted in any way that people don't believe although I did feel a little stung by some of the comments posted. But I am certainly not in the business of slamming anyone who doesn't share the same beliefs as me and you can bet your last buck that I am not a snake oil salesman.

I live in Canberra and if you are ever down this way, I would be more than happy to show you the system and chat over a coffee, my shout.
Cheers Bob

Tombie

30th July 2015, 12:45 PM

I'd be most interested in the AFR readings...

I'm guessing there's a significant impact in there.

Where's the intake for the HHO taken from and where does it inject? Before or after the MAF meter?

When not operating is there a valve closed on that circuit?

Blknight.aus

30th July 2015, 06:28 PM

Boblofty

8th August 2015, 08:33 AM

ITs all about technical data integrity...

in this day and age providing enough data to at least support your claim is easy

TPS, MAF, RPM and injector duration readings while on a dyno with a known load with the system on and off would quickly and cheaply put this to bed. hell even a well documented set of runs under consistent conditions with a dashcam pointing at a nanocom or similar would do the job.

what was your assesment critera for the cleaner running burn and improved emissions? do you have the data to back it up or ere you just going off the colour of the pipe? since you didnt do the tests you must have some kind of a documented result you could easily copy and post up..

beating the snake oil salesman principle is easy. provide all your plans and build tech details FOC... if someone can replicate it ad test it then it works and its wins all the way around, if they cant then you still dont meet the cirtera of snake oil seller because you gave away everything about it for free with the genuine self belief that it worked.bbbbbbbb

Im still really intebrested to know how dry cell electrolysis works

and Dont count on EX military weapons tech buying you much credit, I know weapons techs that I wouldnt trust to check the tyre pressure on a cent.

all that aside, this is where the fun starts..

IF

then why post

and follow up with

and just by the by, I am one of the techos, whats your ex weaps guys experience in?
Dave.... I have been away for a week so a late reply.
For info, broadly I have 4 trades and was trained for and worked on (essentially) Naval weapons systems (hardware and control) including underwater and all of the ancillary equipment associated with such systems. Additionally power generation, distribution and all electrical equipment in later years fell to guys with my training.
My PWM designer and co-hort in these 'experiments" joined the Navy with me and had similar training....he went on to head up the weapons systems workshop in Garden Island and was (probably) one of the best US weapons systems guys of his era. He actually went on from that to work part time on performance cars designing cams etc with a good friend in Brisbane.
I hope that sort of background would speak well for our skills and knowledge....but then, who can tell.

In answer to other questions/comments, a dry cell is the terminology (and I didn't name it) given to a system that doesn't have the plates in the reservoir, instead the cell is separate and the water is circulated by a small pump (in my case about 5l/min) which brings both the gas and water back to the reservoir where the gas is drawn off for the intake.
For technical data, I don't have the equipment for testing and recording and really have no desire to do so. The exhaust emissions figures were taken by my (then) RR mechanic when he was doing a service. He did them out of curiosity (I guess) and simply passed the comment on to me.

Insofar as my comments regarding efficacy of such a system, nothing more than anecdotal information was offered. My consumption of fuel changed for the better and the engine ran smoother and quieter. End of story...and I am happy to do some before and after pics of the instrument panel next time I go on a long trip. (a week away - Canberra to Brisbane and return)
With an original engine and 270,00kms on the clock that might offer some 'comfort'.

And lastly, if anyone has the desire to test my vehicle, then feel free to ask.
At the end of the day I really don't care if anyone believes it or not, the entire thing was put out there to say....hey guys, I tried this and here are my experiences and views....nothing more.

Cheers Bob

Boblofty

1st November 2015, 05:48 PM

Further to my message above where I offered to post some pics after the next long trip...I now have pics of the trip meter, consumption figures etc and am either happy to post the pics or simply relay the data.
If anyone is interested just ask.
Cheers Bob

Blknight.aus

1st November 2015, 06:41 PM

Fair warning.

I will be all over the integrity of your data like a fat kid on a cupcake.

I personally hope that your data meets integrity and proves what you claim

Give it the whole 9 yards and post it all up, leave nothing out

Boblofty

3rd November 2015, 08:46 PM

Well guys, the pics attached (hopefully they have attached) show nothing more than the results as 'logged' by the computer on the vehicle.
For info, the vehicle is a HSE P38 Range Rover, last of the P38's, (Build Dec 2001). It has some 280,000 kms on the clock, original engine with no mods other than the hydrogen cell, no rebuild work (not even head work) original spark plug leads and the plugs have been there for about 130,000kms.
The trip involved a fast run from Canberra to Port Macquarie (up the M7 and Pennant Hills road) to the fuel station at Maccas just off the highway.
It was here that the first series of pics were taken.
The vehicle had 2 pob, back seats down and plenty of gear including my golf clubs but not an overly heavy load. A/C on auto. Moderate traffic for the entire distance with some road works but no forced stops.
Pic 1....ODO reads 280118.0 total distance on the vehicle and 657.2 trip on the day starting with a full tank.
Pic 2....indicates less than 80kms in the tank
Pic 3....indicates Average consumption 12.5L/100km
Pic 4....average speed 102km/hr.
Pic 5.....confirms the trip to be 657.2km.

The following 3 pics (posted in the next message) show the total for the round trip to be 3304.9kms at an average speed of 68km/hr and average fuel consumption of 13.5L/100km.

From Port Macquarie we traveled to the Tweed and the Gold Coast, spent 10 days in that area just day to day running, a one way trip to Coffs and a week in that area then a one way trip to Port Macquarie for another week and back to Canberra.

All in all I think a good combined fuel usage cycle.
Now I offer nothing more in the way of technical data.....this is it, a real life example of the consumption of the vehicle with a browns gas cell. (hydrogen).

It may or may not be better than anyone else gets but for what it is worth, it is an improvement for me over the standard fuel consumption.
Have a good day.
Bob

Boblofty

3rd November 2015, 08:49 PM

To add to the post above, attached are the remainder of the pics I mentioned.
Cheers

Blknight.aus

3rd November 2015, 09:42 PM

Sorry...

for overall data integrity for proof of what you claim, Fail.

However. Its an acceptable start.

I'm prepared to accept that as a standard of evidence for key elements of your baseline info. But you need to back the data up with multiple runs of the same route and then again with the HHO stuff disabled ideally as interspersed runs.

you also need to include additional info specifically accurately totaled fuel consumption figures in terms of how much fuel your tipping into the tank to fill it to the top of the filler neck. weights and driving conditions. There are far too many vagaries in your operating condition statements for your trip info to be meaningful so this needs to be refined.

some very brief googling with no real effort just going as far as the detail blurb shows that the p38s are capable of breaking into the 22 mpg range with some claims getting as far as 28mpg I'm going to presume that the 22 mpg is UK numbers and 28 is an American number which comes out at just over 10l/100 and that that number is most likely the highway cycle in ideal driving conditions. Given your operating speed and conditions (which seem to be more favorable to good fuel economy than the test standard) I'd suggest that its not unreasonable to presume that your city driving technique is also somewhat better than the standard used for calculating the city cycle and such will be giving you lower operating consumptions than advertised.

I'll counter your claim based on your vehicle is operating in the top 1/3rd of a nominal range of fuel consumption averages for your vehicle type.

One trip in randomish conditions does not proof make. It does provide that you have the ability to provide what counts as sufficient evidence

This post was typed before the second round of photos showed up. if they provide addtional suitable details I'll either amnend this post or make another correcting this one.

and heres the correction...

not that impressive. from his first set of numbers only

head to http://www.lrfaq.org/RR/TechnicalInfo.html once there roll down to the fuel consumptions section.

if it was the last of the p38s Im going to assume it was a 4.6 Im also going to state its an auto (says p in the dashpic) heres the cut and paste of the tables for fuel consumption. and I added his numbers in blue

56mph is 90KPH
75mph is 120kph
102KPH is 63.5mph

FUEL CONSUMPTION
4.6 V8 Automatic mpg L/100 km
Urban cycle 12.8 22.1
Constant 56 mph 24.8 11.4
his avg 63.5 mph 22.6 12.5 (presumed constant just to make this number easy to interpret.
Constant 75 mph 20.1 14.1

The other engine and auto options are listed below incase he has one of these but the numbers work less in favor.

4.0 V8 Automatic mpg L/100 km
Urban cycle 14.0 20.2
Constant 56 mph 26.8 10.6
Constant 75 mph 20.2 14.0

4.0 V8 Manual mpg L/100km
Urban cycle 15.2 18.6
Constant 56 mph 27.2 10.4
Constant 75 mph 21.0 13.5

The running details for the overall run is not detailed enough for anything meaningful to be made of it.

p38arover

3rd November 2015, 11:30 PM

When I had a house at Coffs Harbour (550km away), I'd regularly average 13.5l/100km for the trip in my 4.6 HSE P38A. I used to be surprised how it was better than my 4.6 RRC

brad56

5th November 2015, 06:52 AM

Thanks for this post Bob there seams to be a lot of very hard to convince people on this site am watching this post with great interest.
Brad.

Tombie

5th November 2015, 11:29 AM

Thanks for this post Bob there seams to be a lot of very hard to convince people on this site am watching this post with great interest.
Brad.

You dont get it obviously...

I had a D1 with a 5.0L Stroked and Supercharged V8 that would on a trip very similar to this get 10l/100km... Yet around town would do 15-17l/100km..

I could drive Adl-Mel-Adl on my LR tank....

Browns gas is a load of bollocks - more likely to be getting more benefit from Cooling charge or inadvertent changes to AFR

joel0407

5th November 2015, 04:15 PM

I'll try and not be as overly negative as other seem to be.

I love playing with stuff like this. When I was in my late teens, I played with water injection by simply tapping a hole in the lid of my air cleaner on my old corolla. I fitted a simple agriculture spray jet and sprayed water straight into the carby. It worked a little but I didn't have enough pressure to properly mist the water fine enough and the flow was unregulated. I still believe there is benefits to be had with water injection in a internal combustion engine. Things like adding enough to increase compression and the cooling benefits inside the cylinder. Even the heat that gets absorbed by the water in the intake cools the air and makes it more dense, dense air has more oxygen which is needed to burn the fuel. I suspect it's just too costly and unreliable to use on an everyday basis. Water caused all sorts of other problems as it can be erosive and if a bead of water forms on the intake and then drops into the cylinder all at once. Just too hard for the benefit.

Hydrogen and Oxygen as a fuel makes perfect sense but I just don't see how enough can be made from water on the vehicle to make a difference. I believe any benefit from the extra hydrogen and oxygen going into the cylinder will be traded off in the alternator creating more drag generating to electricity required to generate the gas. I suspect the process of converting the water to gas is pretty efficient in the amount of electricity put in and the energy in the fuel (gas) produced but the problem is the generation of electricity by the alternator is very inefficient as is the use of fuel to movement in the combustion engine. So you are loosing energy in heat and friction in the alternator when making electricity and then loosing masses in heat and friction when you turn the fuel into movement.

I guess the benefit comes if you believe the browns gas is increasing the effectiveness of the petrol. I mean if the gas increased the burn of the petrol enough to offset the above then there is possibly something there but if that was the case then I think it would be far better to make the gas at home and fit gas bottles to the vehicle.

joel0407

5th November 2015, 04:32 PM

I should add, i believe there are a heap of ideas out there like this but since no one has worked out an easy way to make money from it, it's not being used.

But there are just as many things out there which are just some bright sparks idea but are absolutely useless.

I remember years ago there was some guy who sold this spark increaser at field days and similar shows. I went to these things all the time so I ended up seeing him just as often. I watched his show as he showed a spark plug connected to a coil making an orange looking spark. He would pass a piece of paper through the spark and show it burning the paper. He reckoned the spark was being wasted in heat. Then he attached his device in between the coil and the lead and the spark became much larger and bright white. It was obviously a much bigger spark and then he would put it on his old car and you'd hear the revs increase. I asked him in front of his crowd why manufactures like Honda and Toyota don't use the device if it's so good. He said he had the patent. Then I asked what it would be worth to a multi million dollar company like Toyota to be able to save fuel and make more power. If it was that good why was he standing in the heat at a field day selling this thing for $50 when he could just sell the patent. I might have upset him a bit. I didn't buy one.

On the other hand, I know now that the future will more likely be in electric cars but years ago we had the technology to make alcohol to run internal combustion cars on it but we continued to use fossil fuels even when we knew it was bad.

Why do we continue to burn coal when we have oceans that rise and fall with tides all the time.

I'm not against the idea that there are things out there that are good ideas and we just aren't using them because someone can't make money from them.

Happy Days

Blknight.aus

5th November 2015, 06:12 PM

Now heres someone whose got his thinking hat on.

Im going to just cut to the chase relevent for this thread, if you'd like you can take me up on waterinjection and why it works particularly in a turbo diesel

Hydrogen and Oxygen as a fuel makes perfect sense but I just don't see how enough can be made from water on the vehicle to make a difference. I believe any benefit from the extra hydrogen and oxygen going into the cylinder will be traded off in the alternator creating more drag generating to electricity required to generate the gas. I suspect the process of converting the water to gas is pretty efficient in the amount of electricity put in and the energy in the fuel (gas) produced but the problem is the generation of electricity by the alternator is very inefficient as is the use of fuel to movement in the combustion engine. So you are loosing energy in heat and friction in the alternator when making electricity and then loosing masses in heat and friction when you turn the fuel into movement.

your theory on what part of the generation is lossy is not correct but its easy to make.

making power out of the alternator is actually very effecient (relatively speaking) using that power to electrolise water is less so. Ignoring all of that...

what you say about why it doesnt work is spot on the money but you also missed a step of loss, in the process of using electricity to split water.

on paper, every single element of what is required to make browns gas work in an engine works and makes sense but if you factor in the losses it just doesnt work, its entropy that gets you in the end.

joel0407

5th November 2015, 07:12 PM

but you also missed a step of loss, in the process of using electricity to split water.

I don't think I did?

I suspect the process of converting the water to gas is pretty efficient in the amount of electricity put in and the energy in the fuel (gas) produced

As this is a simple reaction with little other by products I think it's the most efficient part of the process of converting motion energy to electricity to gas to motion again.

This might be getting a bit D and M but we never gain or loose energy, we only change its form. The trick is to have it in a usable form. Each time we change it's form we end up with multiple other forms. Friction is just the process of kinetic energy to mainly heat energy. Compression is the process of kinetic energy to mainly pressure. The problem is we rarely capture the minority energy created in the processes. When we have multiple processes, these minorities add up and in the end we have lost everything. The energy is still all around us but we didn't capture it.

Happy Days

JDNSW

5th November 2015, 07:20 PM

.........

on paper, every single element of what is required to make browns gas work in an engine works and makes sense but if you factor in the losses it just doesnt work, its entropy that gets you in the end.

If we assume that burning the Brown's gas is converted to mechanical energy as efficiently as possible, then still at least 70% of the energy goes into heat. (The very best internal combustion engines are only about 30% efficient overall)

Then we use some of that energy to drive an alternator - losing power in the drive belt, then the alternator is at best perhaps 80% efficient in converting the energy to electricity, and probably the same again for the electrolysis cell - both of these get hot, which is wasted energy.

So overall, at best, you are spending about five times as much energy to produce the gas as it contributes in mechanical energy.

You can appeal to the theory that the Brown's gas improves the combustion efficiency by a significant amount, but there is no solid evidence that this actually happens, especially with modern engines that have combustion very closely controlled to meet emission and fuel economy requirements.

John

JDNSW

5th November 2015, 07:31 PM

.....
I remember years ago there was some guy who sold this spark increaser at field days and similar shows. I went to these things all the time so I ended up seeing him just as often. I watched his show as he showed a spark plug connected to a coil making an orange looking spark. He would pass a piece of paper through the spark and show it burning the paper. He reckoned the spark was being wasted in heat. Then he attached his device in between the coil and the lead and the spark became much larger and bright white. It was obviously a much bigger spark and then he would put it on his old car and you'd hear the revs increase. ......
Happy Days

It was probably just a spark gap in series with the plug. This idea goes back to probably over a hundred years ago. (which probably means it can't be patented except for the particular implementation)

It will fire more reliably, probably because the spark gap works to steepen the rise time of the voltage at the plug gap, but it is only effective if the plug is fouled or there are other reasons why the ignition is marginal.

The traditional way of doing it is using a shirt button to anchor the two sections of wire insulated from each other as a temporary fix when you can't replace the plug. A lot easier in the Ford T where the HT wires could be air insulated!

John

p38arover

5th November 2015, 08:17 PM

The traditional way of doing it is using a shirt button to anchor the two sections of wire insulated from each other as a temporary fix when you can't replace the plug. A lot easier in the Ford T where the HT wires could be air insulated!

John

Yep, did that with my '38 Vauxhall when I was 16 so I could drive it from Brisbane to Sydney. It used 5 gallons of oil on the trip. I suppose I shouldn't say the car was unregistered and I didn't have a licence.

Blknight.aus

5th November 2015, 08:56 PM

I don't think I did?

the part I was refering to was this bit...

So you are loosing energy in heat and friction in the alternator when making electricity and then loosing masses in heat and friction when you turn the fuel into movement.

I'd assumed when you wrote that that the fuel you are talking about is the browns gas, you need 3 steps to make it on board. the step missing is the production of the gas.

1st loss, mechanical energy to electrical energy (get the alternator turning)
2nd loss, electrical energy to chemical energy (produce the browns gas)
3rd loss chemical energy to mechanical energy (burn the gas to power the alternator)

For the lay level this is good enough, assuming step 1 is 80% effecient, step 2 is 70% effecient and step 3 is 30% effecient. Using the joule as the total measure of energy you put into the system to start with (its lots more but lets just say)

100j *.8=80j (mechanical to electrical)
80j *.7= 56j (electrical to chemical)
56j*.3=16.8j (chemical back to electrical)

Theres actually a bunch of other steps in there if you want to go the whole 9 yards on it but the most important one is the conversion of chemical energy to heat energy (which is what provides the pressure) and then the conversion of heat energy to mechanical energy however this is generally accepted at the lay level to be covered in the loss of converting chemical energy to mechanical energy.

joel0407

6th November 2015, 03:55 AM

step 2 is 70% effecient

80j *.7= 56j (electrical to chemical)

Wow. I haven't researched it at all but I would have thought this would have been far more effiecnt than that. I actually expected it to be 100% efficent. As far as I understand it electrons jump on and off the hydrogen and oxygen atoms. So right at the crux of the reaction, excluding all the heat losses or whatever to get the electricity there, for every electron coming or going they need an oxygen or a hydrogen to connect with. So far as efficency for every electron there should equal gas out. I mean if you loose an electron then you have to do something with the oxygen or hydrogen.

JDNSW

6th November 2015, 05:47 AM

Wow. I haven't researched it at all but I would have thought this would have been far more effiecnt than that. I actually expected it to be 100% efficent. As far as I understand it electrons jump on and off the hydrogen and oxygen atoms. So right at the crux of the reaction, excluding all the heat losses or whatever to get the electricity there, for every electron coming or going they need an oxygen or a hydrogen to connect with. So far as efficency for every electron there should equal gas out. I mean if you loose an electron then you have to do something with the oxygen or hydrogen.

That is one way of looking at it - but the problem with looking at it that way is that an electron is not equivalent to energy. The available energy is from moving an electron to and from different energy levels - energy is measured in electron-volts not electrons. The same way that available hydroelectric energy is a function of both the quantity and head of the water.

What this means in the case of Brown's gas is that the voltage needed to disassociate the water multiplied by the number of electrons moved from one energy level to another is considerably more than the energy content of the gas produced and able to be converted to heat by burning. What happened to the 'missing' energy? It is converted to heat in the electrolysis cell. And this analysis ignores losses from flow of the gas, pumping water etc, which are probably small in comparison.

A similar energy loss is involved in the charge/discharge of, for example, a lead acid battery (similar results apply to any battery, but most of us are more familiar with lead acid). Again, number of electrons in is equal to the number of electrons out - but consider: we charge at, for example, 13.8V, and discharge at, for example, 12.5V, automatically meaning that the energy efficiency of the system is only 90%, without even looking at anything else.

John

joel0407

6th November 2015, 06:00 AM

Thanks JD.

So where is Bob and his Hindenburg? :D

From a very little reading I've done, even those that claim browns gas does work, all that I have read claim other mods are necesary such as advancing timing and increased compression.

Boblofty

7th November 2015, 01:49 PM

It is good to see some rational debate regarding the matter of browns gas....this is what a forum is about, not a place to sling off at others for their efforts or experiences.
Wrt my posting of consumption figures, I am well aware of the figures published by various sites and indeed the manufacturers themselves. While these give a guide to what may be expected, those with experience will agree that they are nothing more than a guide.
While this is purely my experience....let me say this. Regardless of the conditions, over 100,000kms of travel pre HHO cell, my averages were in the order of:
City cycle 18/19L per 100km
Highway cycle 14/15L per 100km.
Over the last 100,000kms and Post cell:
City cycle 14/15L 100km
Highway 12/14L 100km. (best ever was 11.9 on a trip to Melbourne).

Let me be quite clear....I am not about to embark on a 'scientific/engineering' hunt for the reasons, I have neither the inclination or the finances to do all of the documented and supervised tests that would be required.
THIS IS MY EXPERIENCE, NOTHING MORE.
And by the way, the figures above can easily be replicated by turning the cell off. In fact when the cell is turned off to on, an audible change can be detected and the engine actually goes quieter and slows down somewhat ergo...something is happening.

I do understand the variables in operating any kind of ICE. Atmospherics, altitude, air density, temperature etc and I have read many of the scientific papers that say extraction of HHO by electrolysis can or can't be done efficiently....essentially that you can't get out more energy than you put in.
Likewise I understand 'mechanical' losses, heat, friction, hysteresis etc (all which pretty much come down to heat losses anyway. Heat efficiency I believe it is called) and mechanical losses...reciprocating to rotary motion etc
I don't even want to mention the weight of the foot of the driver.

Conservation of energy....it can neither be created or destroyed it simply changes form. OK I get that. But what about the 'unseen' energy. That which binds molecules and atoms...(we know that exists otherwise we wouldn't have atomic energy).
Could something like this be happening here...is it possible that the volume of a split molecule of water becomes greater during the process of electrolysis...is it possible that the volume of the gas produced (pressure - Boyle's laws) increases when the hydrogen is burned, is it possible that the extra fuel (hydrogen) because it burns so quickly and hotly, improves the burn efficiency of the petrol (not to mention the extra oxygen), IS ANYTHING POSSIBLE......
I don't know the answers to these questions....all I know is that something happens when the cell is working

For those who have responded in a positive way (and there has been quite a number of you), I am happy to share my experience and knowledge away from the forum if you are sick of the knockers.
For those who have something constructive to say whether it be for or against, I say lets hear from you.
For those who have some scientific input, I say bring it on.

At the end of the day, robust debate and constructive input is good for everyone, we all learn from it.

So I say....keep this going and may the force (HHO of course) be with you.
Cheers Bob

Blknight.aus

7th November 2015, 02:57 PM

And by the way, the figures above can easily be replicated by turning the cell off. In fact when the cell is turned off to on, an audible change can be detected and the engine actually goes quieter and slows down somewhat ergo...something is happening.

theres your answer...

the engine slows down. therefore (and in laymans terms) as speed increases drag squares by slowing down you're cutting your consumption just in areodynamic drag reduction alone.

then you can add in all the other minor pickups you get that makes just slowing down more effecient. in terms of engine heat, internal friction, the reduction in all the drag on the parasitic loads on the engine.

best guess
given that your HHO is into your airbox the enriched mix is allowing the AFM to run a little hotter which means it thinks its drawing less air than it really is so the ECU has changed your injector timing and duration as well as the advance.

In old school speak all you've effectively done is leaned out the fuel mix and are firing it earlier.

I bet your plugs come out nice and clean, your piston tops are the same and if you run the HHO immediately after startup while the engine is really cold you're engines response is a little hesitant.

Ferret

7th November 2015, 04:04 PM

But what about the 'unseen' energy. That which binds molecules and atoms...(we know that exists otherwise we wouldn't have atomic energy).

Chemistry basically concerns itself with the rearrangement of the electron bonds used to bind atoms together within individual molecules. Rearrangement of these bonds consumes and releases chemical energy.

Nuclear processes basically concern themselves with the rearrangement of the bonds between protons and neutrons used to bind the nucleus together within individual atoms. Rearrangement of these bonds consumes and releases nuclear energy.

There is no nuclear energy involved in electrolysis or combustion since the nucleus of the atoms are not rearranged. Sorry, there is just plain, unexciting chemical energy involved.